in reply to Perl 5 <-> Perl 6 compatibility: a benefit or a mess?

I was under the impression perl 6 couldn't run all (some) perl 5 modules/scripts, and that there would need to be many porting efforts. Has this changed? FWIW, depending on your job description, knowing perl 5 is never a bad thing. (Opinion incoming): It's the best way to tame *nix and many dinosaur *nix systems.
  • Comment on Re: Perl 5 <-> Perl 6 compatibility: a benefit or a mess?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perl 5 <-> Perl 6 compatibility: a benefit or a mess?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 18, 2007 at 17:19 UTC
    Well, Pugs has some issues with running Perl 5 modules atm., but that functionality is specced, so ever "official" implementation has to implement that as well.

    And we do need that feature in order to get Perl 6 adapted quickly.

    I don't think that there will be too many not-ported perl 5 modules used in Perl 6 for a long time, because porting Modules from 5 to 6 is a good way to learn Perl 6.

    Perl 6 in German

[reply]
      Well, Pugs has some issues with running Perl 5 modules atm., but that functionality is specced, so ever "official" implementation has to implement that as well.

      I don't know, but last I heard... wasn't $Larry working on a 5-to-5 translator which should be the basis for a 5-to-6 one? IIRC he stated that the goal was to have it working 90% of the times, doing it right also 90% of the times, or something like that.

      Re CPAN, I quoted it before but I'm doing it again here: "CPAN is my programming language of choice; the rest is just syntax." (Audrey Tang)

[reply]
[d/l]
        She was quoting someone, actually. I forget who!
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom